User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2008/November

AfD nomination of Air Europa Flight 196
An article that you have been involved in editing, Air Europa Flight 196, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Air Europa Flight 196. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Vocal quartets
Hi, I saw your name in the edit history for American Quartet (ensemble), and I thought you might be able to tell me what sort of music they performed -- were they a barbershop quartet, as the article stated previously? Also, if you're knowledgable on the subject of Vocal quartets, your input could be very helpful in the CFD discussion for Category:Quartets that's taking place here. Thanks in advance for whatever assistance you can offer. Cgingold (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 268
I stand by my assessment of AfD consensus to delete. But if you wish, feel free to bring a deletion review, just let me know if you do. Cirt (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I assessed the overall comments made. Consensus was to delete. I read all the comments and rationales, and agreed with them, in addition to balancing those against WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Pesce-pollotarian
I think you are right. I'll leave it to somebody who willing to do it more than myself. Although I am one of pesce-pollotarian, this is not really my subject of interest, though I am interested to read it. It is not a type of vegetarian though. It does not include the word "veg" in front of it w_tanoto (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit on WP:MOSNUM
I don't want to revert any more since I'll be accused of edit warring, but what does your edit summary mean? This is clealy not article space. Can you please revert it (unless you meant something else)?--Kotniski (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're refering to this edit it clearly wasn't in talk, which was the point in the template document. If you've reviewed the template doc and still think it belongs in the WP:MOSNUM article, I'll be happy to self rv.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The doc page (which I recently updated, incidentally, though I don't think I changed this point - at least, I didn't intend to) says that underdiscussion is for use on "project pages, not on articles". MOSNUM is certainly not an article, and I've always understood the term "project pages" to be synonymous with (or at least include) pages in the "Wikipedia:" space, which MOSNUM is. I don't think it can possibly mean talk pages - after all, what would be the point of putting an underdiscussion template on a talk page?--Kotniski (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Self-rv'd it. The Policies_and_guidelines discusses the intended usage.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh, Virginia and Charleston
The article on the Pittsburgh, Virginia and Charleston Railway has been started. If you have additional information or comments, I would appreciate your adding them. Thanks for past info on the railroad. Pustelnik (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Vocal quartets
I'm glad to see that you've added a few more groups to Category:Vocal quartets. However, there's now a CFD under way. Although this category was discussed during the CFD that renamed to Category:Musical quartets, it wasn't actually part of that CFD. I think the basic issue that needs to be addressed is the absence of clear inclusion criteria. That's basically what we were discussing in the CFD, but we need to boil it down to one sentence that can be posted on the Category page. The main question for me is, are there any groups that are rightly considered to be Vocal quartets which don't use some sort of four-part harmony? That seems to be a defining characteristic, but I don't want to arbitrarily exclude groups that possibly should be included but don't happen to use four-part harmony. So I'd like to know your thoughts on this. Cgingold (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't conscious that there were explicit criteria for categories, but the basic idea of "quartet" should be that the group performs four members at a time (substitution of singers from time to time doesn't change that there are four singing at once. The idea of "vocal" should be that the group's notable performances are not instrumental.  I would say "a cappella", but its best to stick to English in titles.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just saw the inclusion criteria you wrote up, which are very close to what I had in mind. I take it that you do consider the use of four-part harmony to be an essential part of the definition, no exceptions? Cgingold (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That'd be one choice, but that's not what I wrote up. Four singers is not the same as four-part harmony, for instance, quartets will on occasion sing individual feature solos, but they are still a quartet. Other times, two singers will double either on the same notes or an octave apart for three-part harmony. It would be wide open to WP:OR.  Just count the singers and keep it simple.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I'm happy to have somewhat broader inclusion criteria, per my concerns above. At the same time, I don't want to have the category challenged on the grounds of being overly broad. The CFD for was a follow-on to the one for  (renamed ) and its sub-cats, most of which were deleted. The basic issue has to do with some editors not wanting to leave categories like these wide open to all musical groups that happen to have X members (i.e. trios, quartets, quintets, etc.). I was able to hold off complete eradication by proposing a compromise of sorts that basically restricted those categories to groups that are named "X Trio" or "Z Quartet", and/or groups that perform a particular repertoire (such as piano trios, string quartets, etc.), while excluding all the rest -- especially rock bands with say, four members.


 * That's what led up to my creation of Category:Vocal quartets -- and why I'm trying to be a bit careful with the inclusion criteria. Like I said, I don't really want to limit it strictly to groups that are known for singing four-part harmony -- that would probably prove to be something of a straight-jacket. So if we go with what you've written up, the question could come down to, "is there something fundamentally different about vocal groups with four members as compared to groups with three or five or six members?" That was what the debate on musical trios revolved around. I guess we'll see what other folks have to say. Your thoughts on all of this? Cgingold (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also started Category:Gospel quartets as a subcategory. We might consider creating subcats for Vocal jazz quartets (e.g. Manhattan Transfer) and possibly collegiate a cappella quartets too.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Kolubara
Hi, LeadSongDog. Thanks for contacting me. The sole thing I've done on hr.wiki with that article is a translation into Croatian (from Serbian, mostly military terminology), improving of style, and in the other edit, fixing of lines in template (grammar errors). Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It'll take me some time to check this. Kubura (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Your response to the comments from Stears81 on my talk page were very much appreciated Labattblueboy (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)